What’s Better? Fracking Rock, Or People?

In France, there is no fracking for gas. Although potentially huge reserves of gas are 2,500 meters underground. Fanatical self-proclaimed “ecologists” have seen to it. Seen to it, that the treasure trove below be left untouched. They are presumably proud of the 11%+ unemployment rate.

Instead of having French Muslim youth fracking for fuel around Paris, they can directly frack Parisians to fuel their anger.

In the USA, there is plenty of fracking. That divided the price of “natural gas” (the notorious methane, CH4) by four (so the price of natural gas, in the USA, is 25% of what it used to be). Methane is less CO2 producing, by unit of energy, than other fossil fuel, because it has relatively less carbon, C, and more hydrogen, H. Obama calls methane a “bridge fuel”, as he argued that CH4 will provide plenty of energy, as one switches to clean, sustainable energy sources.

For once, in a deployed strategy, Obama was right. It had an added bonus of demolishing the coal industry in the USA. Obama helped by inciting the EPA (Environment Protection Agency, Nixon’s baby) to crack down on coal.

Patriotic Circus: Hands On Heart Republican Presidential Candidates. As they Are At It, They Should Cry, But It’s Not Manly Enough

Patriotic Circus: Hands On Heart Republican Presidential Candidates. As they Are At It, They Should Cry, But It’s Not Manly Enough

American patriotism would be silly, except for one thing: it works. It just does not work psychologically, binding Americans together. It works, like in 5% unemployment rate (3% in San Francisco Bay Area, the main engine of the USA).

Fracking is not very controversial in the USA. Massive fracking is generally outlawed in populated areas, such as California, and authorized in far away places, in the so-called “flyover country” (whatever is between the left and right coasts). Nobody cares very much about what happens in gigantic states with tiny populations: Wyoming, a very fracking state, has less than one percent (1%) of the population of Great Britain, yet, a larger area (Wyoming is 112% of the area of the UK). And the fracking is not where the population is. The West already has places with names such as “Badwater”.

Fracking, studies (paid by potential frackers) show, would bring at least 100,000 well paid job in France. In recent years the USA has drilled no less than 500,000 fracked wells, and the jobs brought, mostly indirectly, are in the millions.

Implicit patriotism is why fracking is not controversial enough in the USA to stop it. Whereas in France, the French Socialist president, hounded by an astronomically cruel unemployment rate, and infuriated youth out to kill, has thrown fracking out of hand.

Why is fracking not very controversial in the USA? Because Americans need lots of energy to run their (rather inefficient) economy. Elon Musk’s Tesla is building a “gigafactory” in Nevada (Nevada is 120% of the area of the UK, while having only 5% of the population of the UK). The idea is to build something so enormous, it would bring down the price of Lithium batteries by a third, from economies of scale. Now it requires lots of energy to build, and feed such an enormous enterprise. .

Energy now provided by fracking. Tesla is selling batteries for solar homes to store the electricity produced by solar cells. As California homes are getting covered with solar cells (thanks to legally enforced advantageous feedback of homeowners’ electricity to the giant electric utilities)

I was watching a representative of Greenpeace France, raging against France for being bad for climate. Why? Because, although France pollutes with only 6 tons of CO2 per inhabitant per year, this is caused ny French nuclear plants. Greenpeace France instead lauds Germany, where 50% of electrical energy comes from coal, the energy creating the most CO2.

Greenpeace fanatical opposition to nuclear energy is religious. And a superstition. “Nuclear” seems equated to satanic. Never mind that “nuclear” made life on Earth possible, and creates solar energy (though the Sun’s thermonuclear activity).

Ecology, Greenpeace France’s style is basically a show by ignorant twerps whose business model is to ss for passionate and learned on TV. So I am saying that such “ecologists” are devoured by ambition (they want to be on TV), they are also ignorant (like Jihadists), but they want to pass for all-knowing (like Jihadists who know Allah), and passionate (they can exhibit hatred: of nuclear energy, just as Jihadists do with “unbelievers” and “idolaters”).

Thus they have those pseudo-ecologists have the best of all possible worlds: although they were not passionate enough to learn science (or learn things in general, the same problem as with Jihadists), they can masquerade as passionate creatures with deep knowledge (by showing the certainty of their hatred of something).

But the real question Americans have for them, deep down inside: are they patriotic enough? And what’s wrong with France, if they hate it so much?

It’s all and good to be against fracking (as I am) and against nuclear (as Greenpeace is). But, absent a ferocious research program in applied  new energies, the alternative is dire. The alternative is buying gas from Putin, coal from Merkel (as done presently, presumably to Greenpeace’s satisfaction). Or then, to see France get  ever poorer, and less relevant, and the rest of Europe converting into a youth hotel for Muslim refugees in love with Islamism.

The rise of the Political Correctness a la Greenpeace France (deeply anti-French) led to the present situation on university campuses in the USA where no controversial subject can be mouthed anymore.

The fact that today’s youth cannot take part in healthy debates involving the slightest controversies mean that they are heading towards the lowest possible moral category. Fleeing controversies and debate at all cost fosters the very mood, secrecy, and avoidance of any difficulty, which enabled Nazism and its attendant secrecy. So PC youth are proto-Nazis in their deepest soul.

Those who flee debates don’t just suffer from ignorance (as many Jihadists do), they ask for it. So they ask for Auschwitz.

Mentalities can grow and endure, making their own genetics. In Switzerland, two half-cantons, Obwald and Nidwald, Sharing the same canton, have been fighting for as long as can be remembered, and have different personalities. Genetic studies just showed that the half-canton to the West was peopled by Celts from West France, England and Ireland, whereas the half-canton to the east was people by Germans from North Germany. Over the millennia, the difference in mentalities (what come with moods), endured.

The parties in power in many European countries (Britain may be an exception) have made national priorities secondary. That would be excellent, if it were only to build a supranational EUROPEAN entity. However, instead of doing that, the quick expansion of the European Union to 28 members has constituted an ensemble weak in governance, thus easily manipulated by international plutocracy (to whom one can argue even Greenpeace belongs, as it seems more anxious for power than logic). More than 20,000 registered lobbyists have permanent residency in Brussels, hounding European Deputies (including Marine Le Pen and other anti-EU Members of the European Parliament).

The result is that the populations of the EU member states are not taken care of. So far only the leading party in Greece governs with an anti-austerity mood. All other 27 nations’ government practice “austerity” (money and power to financial types, not enough for anybody else). But only Iceland (not a member of EU, but of Schengen Area) has jailed bankers.

However, this may change tomorrow, when Spain votes: “Podemos” (“We can!”) may make its presence felt. “Podemos” is anti-austerity. I am all for it. “Austerity” is, mostly, an other word for plutocracy.

In France the LRPS (pronounced L’Herpes; hey, I made that up myself!) is the unholy union of the Socialists (PS) and the right wing “Les Republicains” (a copy of the American ones, minus the hands on the hearts). L’Herpes is all for austerity. Except now Parisian soirées, from having starved the military, the secret services, and lauded Literal Islam, while refusing to give the youth work, have turned into mayhem, with 500 killed or wounded in a few minutes.

The resource in France has a finite shelf life. If the CH4 under French soil is not used soon, it will never be used. Indeed, when sea level is one meter up (which is virtually certain within half a century), burning carbon will be outlawed (except as a legacy activity, perhaps). When much of France is a vast polder, nobody will want to invest massively to burn more carbon (even if it is in attenuated form).

If you want austerity, you cannot be for sustainable energy, as it costs energy and spending (as the USA deployed, and is deploying some more) to build the sustainable infrastructure.

By claiming that the principle of purity of French soil is more precious than worrying about infuriated unemployed Muslim youth, the French government treacherously and not so stealthily contribute to Jihad, by deliberately provoking unemployed Muslim youth.

Diabolization is a powerful instrument. For example I diabolize plutocracy (naturally enough). However, instead of doing this, the diabolization of truly diabolic forces, authorities in France have diabolized the National Front, or fracking, or working as much as one wants, or those who fear Literal Islam, or Genetically Modified Organisms, etc. Both phenomena are related (in a conservation law of diabolization).

So do you want austerity, and die, or be enslaved, or do you want to change regime, and mentality? It should not be too hard to decide. Podemos!

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , ,

7 Responses to “What’s Better? Fracking Rock, Or People?”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Nobody can accuse you to be anti-American! The question is pertinent, though, and long a mainstay of the Republicans. So are you going to put your hand over your heart and in tone the Star Spangler Banner?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I dislike patriotism to the extent of monkeying with it, as with putting a hand over a heart. However, patriotism works. Absent monkey patriotism, one has to replace it by higher level patriotism. That’s not done. Although it USED to be done (under, say, the French empire, during WWI).


  2. dominique deux Says:

    I share your dislike for the French brand of “ecologists”, with no training whatsoever in the basics of ecology, and a medieval attitude across the board. You’ll notice that where they are the most (potentially) noxious, ie nuclear power, the Socialist Govt has been careful to give in only very marginally to their chanting, even though it needs their (puny) electoral base.
    There is no “ban” on fracking in France, but a “moratorium”. Quite a different beast, as Tariq Ramadan proved when he piously called for a “moratorium” on the stoning of women and was, for once, booed down by people who could read.
    There are many reasons for this moratorium, and “ecologist” lobbying is far from being the only one.
    First, we have no “flyover country”, which is why you prefer hiking in the US wilderness. We cannot afford, like the US, to lay waste to gigantic areas with a confounding disregard to future generations which might like to settle in there. No “Badwater Gulch” here, thanks but no thanks. Plenty of natives, you know.
    Second, the purported reserves are not going anywhere. Their economic potential will still be around, albeit much greater, when the following conditions are met:
    (1) technology has improved to the point where fracking in populated areas is demonstrably safe. Letting others work on that in their own wilderness, at their own cost and risk, makes genuine, if cynical, sense. And research is going on, both on this issue and the location of potential drilling sites.
    (2) overall fossil fuel reserves are well on their way to physically disappearing (not merely being priced out). This is a matter of decades. Reserves now valued at piddly prices will then be pure gold.
    (3) the global paradigm shift on fossil fuel consumption, driven by climate change considerations and the above, ensures that newly drilled reserves are put to good, sound, harmless use.
    All of these conditions are likely to be met in a not too distant future. And we’ll be glad then not to have splurged on our precious hoard.
    A parallel could be drawn with the GMO controversy. Genetic engineering is a huge step forward. Yet, being essentially a tool of plutocratic corporations, it has (on purpose) delivered very little on its promises to the small farmers, and the technology in use, having been introduced way too early in its development, is still open to valid criticism, especially on the risk of potentially harmful gene sequences escaping through plasmids and the many other bacterial brands of exploratory sex. Which is why, at this time, I oppose their use despite their huge potential for the good.
    As for your concern for suburban unemployment… those guys are highly unlikely to move to rural areas and put in a real day’s work. But you have a point. Let’s usher them into the jobs market the way French women got into it during WW1: turning out ammunition for our air force, which is running out of it fast and has no hope of US replenishment.
    btw, Charles de Gaulle (the carrier) is due to extensive refit (18 months) in one year or so, and it has already been arranged that her Rafales will operate from US carriers. It will be interesting.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Wow, spectacular information about the Rafales! That makes sense. Rafales have long landed on USA carriers. The USA should bite the bitter pill, and just build (updated) Rafales under license.

      Rafales, differently from F22s, are constantly updated, and acquired more INFRA RED stealth features. The Rafale, as a pure INTERCEPTOR, is superior to the F22. Both planes, like the F16, don’t go as fast as Concorde, thus are much slower on a dash than the F15, or some fast Russian jets, but that’s because the fixed air intakes, part of stealth. Both the Rafale and the F22 can do supersonic supercruise, fully armed. Something F15 can’t do.

      Now the planes on USA carriers are F18s, of course, not F22s. And F18s have been updated somewhat (“Super Hornet”), but the Rafale is vastly superior (smaller size, canards, Spectra, etc…)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I agree with ALL your points. However, the key to my indignation is the absurd level of employment among the youth, especially Muslim youth, in France.
      The least that the government should do is view that youth unemployment as number one top priority. Above austerity and even bankers. The government blocked even research and exploration for fracking.

      Notice that in the USA, there was not one massive, precise fracking disaster (whereas there were some with conventional oil). One reason is that the wells are very deep and have to be constantly milked. In other words, a fracked well can be severely monitored, it’s not like it’s going to gush out.

      Ecologically, it makes no sense using German coal instead of Parisian methane.

      The mood of the French government in this as in other matters (working on Sunday, say) is that there are more important problems and clienteles than unemployed, infuriated Muslim youth. Well, 500 dead and wounded in 30 minutes will cost much more in lack of tourists coming. (True the attack was master minded from abroad, but Muslim youth disgruntlement in France provides enough oxygen for terrorists to swim along, and make France a relatively easy prey.)

      By claiming that the principle of purity of French soil is more precious than worrying about unemployed Muslim youth, the French government treacherously contribute to Jihad, by provoking unemployed Muslim youth.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Another point, implicit in my essay, is that, if the CH4 under French soil is not used soon, it will never be used. Indeed, when sea level is one meter up (which is absolutely certain within 50 years), burning carbon will be outlawed (except as legacy activity). When much of France is a vast polder, nobody will want to burn more carbon


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: I boosted the essay consecutively to your remarks. Especially at the end. I did not address the GMO situation: France uses GMOs when she imports soy from Brazil (say). GMOs do not seem to me the worst problem: collapse of biodiversity and neonicotinoids are very bad problems.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: